Long and short of it: Tamron 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro review

Every pro makes choices as to what to carry, what not, what to invest in, what not to buy. It depends on the kind of work you do and how much. A wedding photographer does not pack the same kit as an extreme sports shooter. I'm a part-time freelance journalist. I sometimes carry an extra body with a different lens, but when I have to be all over the place for an extended period, I'd rather just put my Nikon around my neck with the 16-300 on it.

I would imagine that this sort of lens would be excellent for a journalist in applications that do not require good low light capability. For instance if you are taking photos outside for print in a local newspaper the sharpness and bokeh advantages of a high quality "pro" 24-70 type lens wouldn't make that big of a difference compared to lighter weight and greater range.

An RX10 or FZ1000 are indeed good alternatives, though they sacrifice some dynamic range and maybe depth-of-field, compared to using an APS-C camera.

Uhhh...you need to look at it on the same body, you know.

This lens performs as well as the Canon 24-70/f4L on the 7D in the 24-70mm focal range, and only a little worse than the 17-55 f2.8 (stopped down to f5.6).

In fact, it's only about 25% worse than the Canon 70-200/f2.8L. On the same 7D body, with the same f-stop, that lens only achieves 1600-1900 lines.

That's really not bad at all. If you want to start comparing with full-frame bodies, feel free to quadruple the price of your setup.

Dave, you say I'm making a "pointless observation" because the lens will only be for casual snapshots. Thanks. But in your desire to put me down, I think you've missed what I'm really getting at, the context.

If DP Review had said the lens is only for casual use, I wouldn't have added my 2 cents. Furthermore, the reviewer says that the softness issue only comes into play at 200-300mm. That's factually incorrect. It's actually there from 50mm.

The deeper problem is too many DP reviews don't define where a piece of equipment fits along the continuum from camera phone up to the professional level. That's info we need to balance out the pros and cons.

Too often, DP reviewers avoid giving that context. As a result some commenters believe a piece of low end gear stacks up against the high price stuff. There's nothing wrong with making a tradeoff in gear based on lightness or price. But let's not pretend apples are oranges. And please don't denigrate someone else's comments, it's rude.

You can take amazing shots with this lens. You can take amazing shots with your iPhone. Or not. Up to you.

The ship looks not to bad. The bad background is due to atmospheric distortions

For APS-C/DX, the best are atm i think the 18-135 STM (Canon), and 18-105 VR, even i don't like that Nikon lens for sure, but the 18-70 DX more (not as good for >= 12 MP sensors, too soft)

More focal length - better get a 55-200 DX VR or 55-250 STM. These 18-2xx are too worse.

Too bad, Nikon won't release a 23 or 24mm/1.8 DX, i'm tired of waiting for it, so that i would have 35 to 36mm focal length in FF terms. So far, i'd get the new 24/2.8 DN Art from Sigma if sonyalpharumors is right, and would enjoy then this lens on my tiny NEX-5, best for the unexpected snapshot on to go into a way small bag...because Nikon won't give me that 35/36mm FF-equal focal length...sad, but true.

I know this Dustin Abott Link, as i am getting info emails. Perhaps Sample Variation, always the same with Tamron, even i do love my 17-50/2.8 & 28-75/2.8 lenses both much...the latter was into service, so it's tack sharp and perfectly adjusted.

if you don't have already a camera, the current canon model, G3X, is about 1000$, however you get even more zoom.
Or you can get the FZ1000 for only 100$ more than this lens, and with the brighter lens, the panasonic will probably deliver same level of IQ and all the rest. But with better movie recording than most entry level dslrs :)

Leandros, he never said primes :) he only said good lenses.
What about a 24-70 + 70-200 big nice lenses (say F4, fpr the smaller size)?

I disagree. This is the second super zoom I've owned. The first, a Tamron 18-200, sucked. I then tried the 2 zoom solution for a while (Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 70-300 USD) but that was too inconvenient. This is much better solution for me. As a travel/vacation lens I believe this is an excellent solution and I've gotten great results with it. Above 200mm it't doesn't hold up to pixel peeping but so what. My vacation photos aren't going to be entered in some art photography contest with a 2 x 3 ft print. At 16-100, where probably 80% of my vacation photos fall the IQ is excellent and hold up to pixel peeping with ease. When mounted on my A77ii it certainly is as good or better than the better super zooms like the Pany FZ1000 (which I considered before buying this lens) or your G1X and much better than any tiny sensor super zoom. I'd like to add that the CA doesn't seem as bad as the review makes it out to be unless the scene is back lit and even then primarily at the edges.

Pretty condescending comment.

If you actually want improved image quality, your two lens kit is going to be significantly heavier, bulkier, and more expensive. Not to mention the shots missed while switching lenses. A slightly soft shot is better than no shot.

As for travel, there's more to travel than photography. A super zoom lens can let you capture the moments and scenes (and yes, with much better quality than a point & shoot - even your G1X) while letting you enjoy your surroundings and company, and not having to constantly switch lenses.

Lastly, there is something very creatively liberating about having a long telephoto on a walk-around lens. Very few people do it - but you'll see compositions and catch moments and details that very few other people will, because no one else is going to just casually have a 300mm lens on their camera. They'll be "maximizing their photographic potential" with the same boring 24-70mm field of view that everyone else has.

Sounds like some people just don't enjoy telephoto photography. That's cool.

Those are the shots you're missing. But if you aren't looking for them, it's no big deal.

A bird landing on the branch at the lookout. A deer flitting across the trail. A snapping turtle popping up briefly for air in the lake.

These are just examples I'm taking from casual hikes that have led to great moments and special photos...and they only lasted 30 seconds.

Sounds reasonable, however If I go hiking, I always have the tele mounted and only use the WA for landscapes.. But that's not travelling for me.

Plus, the turtle shot.. You need to show me that one. How you got a "great" photo in less than 30sec.. With a megazoom lens at f/6,3 on a crop body..

Well, to be fair, it's not a "great shot." But like I said, a great moment and a special photo. A memento.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5788/20802670018_ee635a1a74_k.jpg

That's with a superzoom that tops out at "only" 280mm equivalent. Having 450mm eq. would have been nice!

@tbcass: good for you, if you believe you found your solution.
Still, if you're happy with what such a lens can provide, you don't need a DSLR..

@Androole: While your turtle looks fun, this picture could easily have been captured with a pocket camera too..

...But then I'd still need to carry around my mirrorless to get the other shots I took that day that are well served by more dynamic range and resolution...

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/709/20802585570_be362ff3a4_k.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5696/20368018804_98a8217344_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/586/20980880982_16569cd27b_k.jpg

Anyway, if it doesn't appeal to you, it doesn't appeal to you. The rest of us will go on enjoying it.

badi, the debate has moved on, but you were still comparing apples and oranges when you compared a relatvely newly released lens with a camera that's getting a little long in the tooth on the basis of price.

If I had a dollar for every time that I've drawn attention on DPR to the simple fact that product prices WILL decline after products are introduced and cannot be compared without that consideration, then, well, I'd have a few bucks extra. The key point here is that all-in-one camera prices do not decline at the same rate as prices for interchangeable lenses.

@Leandros S You're a little over the top with a 16mm and 300mm prime. My point here is that I find it quire rare to need those two extreme focal lengths at the same time. Rare enough, I for one, am not willing to put up with the poorer image quality I'd get with a super zoom solution. For example, and folks tend to call this a travel lens, when visiting a new town and when done with an assignment, I'd roam around and probably never exceed 85mm or so. Anyone can come up with some anecdotal situation where someone might wish they had a 300mm, but in reality, it's just not often enough to have to carry around a lens with dubious IQ.

Again, when traveling, usually I want a great optic because of the once in a lifetime opportunities.

I mean why bother buying an interchangeable lens camera only to make it a large one size fits all with poorer image quality? The people I see who make this choice are often losing their passion for photography. The excuse is travel, but it stays attached.

Androole, those are simply further examples for images that could have been captured by ANY camera...

@photominion: Actually I do require such a camera because nothing else can meet my requirements of high IQ when I need it, fast AF for action/sports, widest possible range of focal length. You're not thinking logically. The idea that every situation always requires the best IQ isn't true. I don't use the 16-300 for everything, just in certain situations where the convenience of the lens outweighs the slight lack of IQ. I have several other lenses that I use when the situation warrants including a 35mm prime, a 70-200 f2.8, a 70-300, a 150-600, a 17-70 and a 90mm f2.8 macro. Each lens is used in accordance with my requirements at the time.

You can think what you would like to think, but I'm surprised that you don't take your own medicine. Why do you own an X100S when every photo you've shown in your gallery taken with it would look just as good taken on an iPhone?

@tbcass Hey, unfortunately, this thread has denigrated more than I would have hoped. Sometimes I fail to express myself in a manner consistent with my attitude and come across condescending. As an example, I never put down another's photographs unless they are specifically asking for a critique, then often try to frame it positively. We are all photographers trying to do what we enjoy. This might be what irks me a little about super ratio zoom lenses. They strike me as a compromise between convenience and passion for photography. I'm not saying I'm correct, but this is purely my personal observation and I'm expressing it not to be mean spirited, but to maybe trigger more passion.

Once in a lifetime are travel photos where you are not likely to go back to the same spot. It might be the oxbow in the Grand Tetons. It might be desert burros in the Red Rock, Nevada area. Some are planned but many are not. I just may not ever be back.

@tbcass Though I think photography is 90% the photographer and 10% gear, I want the best opportunity within my budget and not be hampered by sub-par optics, if possible. This is why I usually shoot full frame and the best glass I can afford. It's why I carry a tripod and an incident light meter. It's why I shoot RAW only. It's not to be cool, but to afford me the best possible opportunity within my skill set.

As far as a super ratio is concerned, why bother to lug an extra lens with sub-par performance through most of it's range, which is also slow. When traveling, not on assignment, I might carry two FX bodies, a 15mm fisheye, 16-35 f/4, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.4, 150 f/2.8 Macro, 80-200 f/2.8, 80-400 f/4.5-5.6, Giottos Carbon Fiber travel tripod, two strobes in a Think Tank roller. I will also have a day bag and assorted belt pouches. Depending on location, I might take additional and leave some of the above behind. I also bring a smaller point and shoot, car charger and a laptop. :-)

@photominion Those might just be the choices I bring while on a week traveling and not on assignment. I wouldn't "lug" them all around daily. That's what a day bag is used for, the two or more I may bring on an outing. Sometimes just one and one in a belt pouch, but isn't that the point of an interchangeable lens camera? When on an excursion with the grandchildren, it might just be that little Canon point and shoot. There would lie the purpose of a non-interchangeable lens camera.

I see nothing wrong with a point and shoot type camera. I just wouldn't put it to the same use as I do my DSLR models in most cases, though they can work in a pinch. That indeed is the issue I see with super ratio zooms. It seems to be an attempt at converting one's interchangeable lens camera into that point and shoot and doing so in a much less convenient manner.

I guess it doesn't matter. If one is shooting Jpeg and automatic, sticking some Tamron 18x lens on there might be appropriate. ;-)

You guys are describing the 18-200mm that Tamron also recently revised. Great lens for a great price.

Not really. The 16mm on the wide end makes a big difference.

Yeah, this is unfortunately the standard way 3rd-party folks deal with Sony having IBIS. The good news is that it does mean the Sony version is probably ever so slightly more rugged, lighter, and might actually be a touch better aligned... but it should be cheaper, too.